Essay on Bloom’s book “Closing of the American Mind”

In the response to Bloom’s book “Closing of the American Mind”, Lawrence Levine observes multiculturalism and fights against conservative critics. His argument relies on a fundamentally dissimilar idea of American identity from Bloom’s.

Utilizing a historian’s sense of model to this discussion, which has generally been separated from the simple facts, he declares the recent protest over declining norms and political rightness merely restates the hymn that has accompanied each alteration in the teaching of literature and history. He asserts the idea of a Western Civilization depicted by narrowly defined writers and events appeared only lately as a outcome of war-time administration propaganda, and that administrations of universities have been challenging the creation of Western Civilization for more than three decades. Additionally, he asserts multiculturalism and alterations in a curriculum are the outcomes of uncontroversial modifications in the nation’s demographics and culture rather than leftist societal engineering.

Levine’s book possesses one objective, legitimizing historiography, which stresses the multicultural roots of American social and cultural history, and he tries to achieve this by utilizing professional and political arguments. His professional arguments are very sound, however it is his political declarations that cause some to be uncomfortable with the total thesis. The author passionately asserts the investigation of multicultural history in the universities is applicable, and he asserts it is precise and academic. Most noticeably nevertheless, the author shows in a professional way that the existing significance afforded multicultural history by the higher education is a conventional and predictable result, since it reproduces the long-lasting development of US society and its relation to the universities.

The author’s primary 2 points are in particular convincing. Conservative claims concerning intellectual refuse presuppose liberal education and the corresponding route of research have been steady since the evolvement of the University. Bloom’s energetic resistance of what he manes “Western Culture” is merely a short episode in this long discussion over history and literature. The idea that “Western Civilization” may be identified with certain books and also cultures was being reevaluated before campuses started to alter the general education program in the mid-1980s.

Levine demonstrates what may be named in a university a counter-narrative to anti-P.C. forces. The curriculum, he asserts, consisted solely of works from a classical era until the 19th century. Also, the works of Plato and Homer were taught not as inspiring clarifications of ethics, but as the foundation of merely grammar lessons. Bloody fights were needed to get Milton and Shakespeare into the norm and to have great books realized as the literature. The idea of the Western culture, whose major depository is a center of the great books, dates just from the era of the World War I.

During the Cold War era the curriculum altered in a way of celebrating the characteristic greatness of US culture and politics. The trouble with this certain novel scholastic order was that it neglected the aspects of the US experience, which comprised injustice, conflict or human beings outside the leadership ranks, and also almost everything concerning the Third World. Dissenting opinions were not tolerated. Luckily, during the 1960s an educational Golden Age started, in which truthfully free queries were allowed to blossom at the same time that the university doors were opened to far more varied and representative populace.

It is a fact that scholarly alteration is steady and should not be regarded as threatening or preventable. Nevertheless, Levine segues unnoticeably from there to the notion that since the common process is healthy, each particular should be healthy too; his suggestion is that anybody who objects to a certain alteration is actually expressing antagonism to a change itself. Lawrence Levine would have been far more supportive if he had persuaded readers that he could be tough-minded toward the major academic tendency of the past thirty years, or had bothered to reply the solemn objections to it, even as the author was making it sound helpful in general.

By now the nation has had the first of two important fights and universities are beginning to understand that the USA is not a melting pot nor is the limited research of European literature and history nurturing a feeling of unity in American citizens. Levine demonstrates how slowly things go and a disagreement in academic circles to this novel course of research, which comprises minorities, females, and alternate styles of life.

A person who treats the book as a bracket to a culture fight will be disappointed, because at the finale of the book – the genuine crisis of higher education stays untouched. However, throughout the work, the author utilizes lots of voices to prove the point. He preserves the booklover’s attention throughout the work and quietly brings them around to the finale, that to be a well curved scholar, academia should alter regularly and accept novel voices, ideals and thoughts on literature or history so that novel voices and strong voices may be heard by everybody. It is the reviewer’s argument that Lawrence Levine has done a praiseworthy job in the book.


Leave a Reply